Originally posted by el gilThat's an interesting opinion. Mine is that our children will one day damn us for spending so much time and resources worrying about a hypothetical problem while doing nothing about a real one (radical Islam). Regarding Alekhine, he claimed that the articles were written under duress because the Nazis threatened his family. Alekhine lived in strange times where there was great social upheaval. His wealthy family lost everything to the Bolsheviks, he saw WWI (on the battlefield, no less), the Great Depression, the rise of Nazism and WWII, and through it all, he clove to chess. Would any of us have been so steadfast?
Of course. And also: we cannot compare our sense of History, our perception of the monstrosity of Nazism (in 2007), with the one that a persong living inside Nazism could have. In 1934, it wasn't agreed or recognised at all that Nazism was a bad thing, and Alekhine was just a person of his epoque...
...just as we do; we consider our way of living as good, ...[text shortened]... stroyed the planet and the whole nature with our pollution, and without giving a damn about it
If i may make a point with regard to Fischer, he had none of the resources of Kasparov or Karpov, no teams of Grandmasters looking through the games of his opponents trying to find weaknesses, no huge soviet chess machine helping him along the way, in his rematch with Boris Spassky, who as far as i can determine doesn't really get a mention on anyone's list, as late a the nineties Fisher did not even possess a computer, his friends had to rally round and find one for him, he is therefore IMHO the greatest player who has ever lived and as for the credulity of his statements it is obvious that the man was ill, paranoia and aggression classic symptoms of Schizophrenia, are we to condemn someone for something that was out with his control? such an action waves like an huge banner above other prejudice such as racism, Nazism etc etc.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194025
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFischer had a top rate team behind him in 1972 - make no mistake about that.
If i may make a point with regard to Fischer, he had none of the resources of Kasparov or Karpov, no teams of Grandmasters looking through the games of his opponents trying to find weaknesses, no huge soviet chess machine helping him along the way, in his rematch with Boris Spassky, who as far as i can determine doesn't really get a mention on anyone ...[text shortened]... such an action waves like an huge banner above other prejudice such as racism, Nazism etc etc.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat a great argument for Fischer, the genius on a knifedge of insanity.
If i may make a point with regard to Fischer, he had none of the resources of Kasparov or Karpov, no teams of Grandmasters looking through the games of his opponents trying to find weaknesses, no huge soviet chess machine helping him along the way, in his rematch with Boris Spassky, who as far as i can determine doesn't really get a mention on anyone ...[text shortened]... such an action waves like an huge banner above other prejudice such as racism, Nazism etc etc.
Fischer and Kasparov yes.
But without the games of the past masters to study,
Lasker, Capa and Alekhine etc...
How good would they have become?
But talent will out. And these two, in their prime, were the best.
I have a sneaky admiration for Bronstein, Tal and of course Morphy.
All were naturally gifted and reached their height with their own
brand of play.
Rumours still abound that Bronstein threw the World title in 1951.
I think not. If he did then Botvinnik certainly did not know anything
about it. He was in tears in the adjourment for the last game.
(a game that Bronstein could easily have won, but lost).
